Burning a Boris Johnson effigy landed a 64-year-old woman in court but the case was dismissed after the prosecution "saw sense".

Jane Nicholl, from Croydon, was charged with an offence under the Highways Act 1980, of lighting a fire on or over a highway where a person using the highway was injured or endangered.

The protestor lit the effigy on Bonfire Night last year outside One Commercial Street, a block of luxury flats above Aldgate East tube station, as part of a campaign against social cleansing.

She was part of a group protesting against the use of Poor Doors - the use of separate entrances for wealthy owners and affordable housing tenants.

At the trial last Thursday the prosecution did not offer any evidence to back up the claim that a passerby had been ‘injured, interrupted or endangered’ by the burning Boris.

Your Local Guardian:
Class War protestor Jane Nicholl celebrated outside court

Jane Nicholl, from the Class War protest group, said: "Poor Doors are regular features of practically all new developments in London.

"Protests against gentrification and social apartheid are now spreading throughout London and my aim is to carry on being part of these protests until this social cleansing is wiped out for good.

"I've protested against apartheid in South Africa in the Seventies and I am now protesting against social segregation in London in 2015."

Her solicitor Jessica Black, of Bindmans LLP, said: "We feel vindicated that the prosecution finally saw sense and acknowledged that they had to drop the case because there was insufficient evidence.

"It is also encouraging that the prosecution agreed that the burning of an effigy of Boris Johnson constitutes legitimate freedom of expression in the context of this peaceful protest against the use of poor doors."

A CPS spokesman said: "Following the original charging decision, which was made by the police, the CPS reviewed the case and prior to the trial an amendment was made to that charge to reflect that the risk was to a person unknown.

"Following a review of the available CCTV in the case, the CPS asked the court to make a further amend to the charge to reflect that the risk was to the police officer.

"We accept that the court felt this was not an appropriate amendment at that stage of proceedings and we will be looking at our decision making in this case and at any lessons that can be learned for the future."